THE Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) has slapped The Mico University College over the dismissal of one of its employees, Alexander Okuonghae, and ordered the institution to pay the former lab assistant two years’ salary, four weeks’ notice pay, and outstanding vacation for 2018-2020.

The dispute arose over a decision by the university to not renew Okuonghae’s contract effective February 6, 2018, after he was first employed as a lab assistant in January 2011 on an initial three-month contract.

The contract was rolled over, with the terms and conditions remaining the same, on several occasions until it was indicated that it would not be renewed.

In their submission to the IDT, lawyers representing Mico argued that Okuonghae had a fixed-term contract which came to a natural end, and there was no termination nor dismissal.

According to the university, Okuonghae’s score in his 2017-2018 annual performance review was unsatisfactory, and this was based on complaints from lecturers, and performance targets set by the management were not met.

The university further argued that Okuonghae was given an opportunity to discuss his performance appraisal with his supervisor and he did not raise any objection. It added that Okuonghae was also e-mailed a form with a two-week deadline to respond to the evaluation, but he did not.

In his response before the IDT, Okuonghae challenged the procedural fairness of his termination as he argued that he did not face any disciplinary charges during his seven years at Mico.

It was also pointed out that there was no evidence to show that Okuonghae received any form of communication from the Administration of the university to cover his employment between May 1, 2011 and January 31, 2014, when he was offered a contract for temporary employment for the first time.

In its ruling the IDT said, “The tribunal is prepared to accept that there was no ‘temporary’ or ‘probationary’ status to Mr Okuonghae’s employment arrangement, since it did not specify a probationary period, as the law contemplates, which would entitle the college to terminate the contract without notice during that period.”

Alternately, it made provision for the contract to be terminated with one month’s notice, thereby removing any doubt about its probationary status.

“At the expiration of the original contract in April 2011, Mr Okuonghae was allowed to work, uninterrupted, for a period of nearly three years before receiving any formal communication from the college. The applicable provision of the ETRPA [the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act] specifies that where a worker works four weeks beyond the expiration of his contract — in Mr Okuonghae’s case, four weeks after April 2011 — the contract is deemed to be of an indefinite duration.”

The IDT found that based on what was presented to it, Okuonghae’s contract status at the time of his dismissal should be seen as permanent, “that is a contract of indefinite duration, and not one for a fixed-term”.

According to the IDT, it concluded that the non-renewal of Okuonghae’s contract was based on his “unsatisfactory” performance.

“And while poor performance is a reasonable ground for termination, the process must be seen to be fair; adequate time for the fulfilment of the objectives must be set; and established best practices in the field of human resources and industrial relations, underpinned by notions of honesty, dialogue, transparency and empathy, must be observed,” said the IDT in its ruling dated March 3.

“The circumstance of his dismissal points to one of conduct, and the college, in carrying out the termination, failed to observe the provisions of the Labour Relations Code and the cardinal principles of natural justice, thereby making the dismissal unjustifiable,” said the IDT.

Mico had initially gone to court to challenge the decision of the Ministry of Labour to refer the dispute to the IDT but this was thrown out by the court.